The Scroll is not censored in any way, shape, or form. Neither Dr. Curtis nor any other member of the administration reads any of the articles before publication, nor are they informed of the topic or content of any of these articles—unless they are quoted, in which case they are sent only their quotes to confirm accuracy. The faculty advisors to the paper have no input as to the direction or creation of any of the group editorials. These group editorials are written by the entire editorial board, which consists of the editor-in-chief, all of the page editors, the online editors, the photo editor, the graphics editor, and the editorial associates. While we are financed by the school, the administration does not exert any direct control over the articles or opinions we publish.

As stated in our masthead, The Scroll encourages informed discussion of issues concerning the Academy and the world. I, along with the editorial board, believe that any newspaper has a duty to tell the truth and publish the news along with contributors’ opinions in an accurate and objective format. One responder responding to the September 9 editorial “Seniority as More Than a Hierarchy” told The Scroll that it should publish student opinions. We do. We would all love to receive more.

The problem is that there are hardly any student opinions to publish—and those with opinions are frequently too afraid of their classmates to articulate them in a public forum. When we hear anyone complaining about changes in school policy or taking issue with traditions, the Opinion/Editorial editor Elizabeth Whitton ’12 and I immediately solicit articles for the paper. Unfortunately, we are usually rejected, out of the fear, laziness, or apathy that surfaces once the verbal complaining is over. Several members of the class of 2012 argued eloquently and extensively over changes to housing on our class Facebook page, but when asked to write pieces for the paper articulating their viewpoints, refused. This issue of The Scroll, and indeed the entire school, would be vastly improved with critical input of students.

This is not a critical generalization of the student body. This is a challenge to students to put aside for a minute the attitude of silence and passivity fostered by an entrenched sports culture of loving Deerfield (an integral, wonderful part of our education) without questioning anything. If we actually love Deerfield, we have a duty to improve it for future generations of students and to leave the school better than it was when we found it. We will attempt to put action behind the grand rhetoric of our Mission Statement and imbue our cherished traditions with sincere meaning. I urge students, teachers, and alumni to recognize the strength in their collective action and opinion, as the student body did so successfully with its dress code petition. We are grateful for our freedom to publish student opinions. Please help us use it!

I’m in definite agreement with what appears to be your viewpoint on David Koch. I just hope you haven’t been mislead to think that there were articles written about his involvement with the school, the climate denial movement, the Tea Party, or anything else that were not published because the administration pulled a Big Brother and censored them. As I’ve tried to make clear in multiple editorials and letters we would very eagerly publish an opinion piece or letter to the editor of this nature. If you’d like to respond to this piece in that format regarding David Koch or anything else (even if all you wrote was a paragraph) I would gladly publish it. If you decide against this for whatever reason, I see that as self-censorship, and that is the only type of censorship associated with The Scroll.